Pages

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Dogman Terrorizes Montana Home

From Dogman Encounters Radio

Imagine what it would be like to be under siege in your own home. Well, tonight's guest, Robin, experienced that, when Dogmen focused their attention on her rural Montana home. What made matters even worse was their seeming obsession with her 7-year-old daughter. She describes it as being worse than a Nightmare!

Pretty busy this morning but I'm going to devote a few minutes to giving lktomi a reply from a previous thread. He seems to favor using a barrage of different angles to respond to but since I don't have that luxury of time to address every one I will comment specifically on his favorite - physical evidence. In a previous post he makes the comment:

"I've yet to see a mainstream study in using the physical evidence to track "Bigfoot"... Have you?"

As a matter of fact I have. Perhaps not tracking in the traditional sense of following a trail but certainly tracking down evidence which could prove that Bigfoot does indeed exist. I have to look no further than Dr. Sykes's recent genetic study on the DNA of supposed Sasquatch hair. Now I've heard the argument that not enough hairs were tested but he received a total of 95 samples for which because of funding he whittled down to 37 samples which he felt had the best chance of extracting DNA and out of those 30 were successful. Of course we all know the end result to that study. But he did try. lktomi also commented:

"Real evidence, physical evidence, or material evidence is any material object that plays some role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on the object's DEMONSTRABLE physical characteristics."

Now that's a key word. Since we cannot even confirm that Bigfoot does indeed exist how can we demonstrate that the "physical evidence" comes from him? You would also have to demonstrate conclusively why it could NOT possibly be man-made? He also writes:

"A track impression, something that can be cast and presented as a physical impression of a particular biological entity, is physical evidence."

Sure - it's physical . . . as in an impression that something or someone made and you can speculate on what made it but it's no open and shut case as it HAS been proven that these footprints can be hoaxed.

The bottom line as it stands right now is that every single argument you make for it's existence can be countered with "we have no biological proof of it's existence proof'. Now Dr. Syke's attempt was a noble effort to pursue that end but was unsuccessful. Had he been able to confirm one of these hairs a possible Sasquatch and had it been reviewed thru a peer process you would have had grounds for your belief. Even the best geneticist in the world can make mistakes such as his finding of ancient polar bear DNA in the Himalayas. This is exactly why peer review is so important. This is exactly why all the "evidence" you present by a few professionals needs to be peer reviewed. All they have or had to do was make the effort to submit a professional paper for review.

I've spent enough time this morning on this but I will address lktomi's other points as time allows.

You're not that busy if you're devoting that much time to a drunken european who has never even been to the US much less have any concept of how unlikely it is that tribes of 9 foot tall hairy apemen could keep eluding photographers in 21st century America.

"I've yet to see a mainstream study in using the physical evidence to track "Bigfoot"... Have you?"... And you provide a genetic study as a logical response to that request? Is this yet more evidence of you needing that "head start", Mr Curious? "Perhaps not tracking in the traditional sense..." I rest my case. There isn't one. Now I know you like to preemptively call out the counter arguments you know are to ensue, but it doesn't make the counter arguments any less significant. There were a number of recognised animals not shown to exist in that very small amount of hair samples Sykes tested, it means nothing. Even 95 fair samples isn't a fair reflection of the amount of people have reported seeing large hairy bipeds in the US and Canada for hundreds, no, thousands of years. Not anywhere near a fair reflection on the track impressions that people have come across in deep wilderness interiors. The only known researchers who submitted samples were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples.

"Since we cannot even confirm that Bigfoot does indeed exist how can we demonstrate that the "physical evidence" comes from him?"... It gets very tiring repeatedly pointing out illogical scientific shortfalls over countless comment sections, but I am well aware that one of the most readily used pseudosceptical methods is to repeatedly deny. So (sigh), are you yet again suggesting that a body must materialist before the evidence that's meant to be used to source that body is valid? Again, more evidence of the quasi-religious-like mindset that propels pseudosceptics to a pedestal where they (feel like) they don't have to abide by very basic scientific principles. There is nothing in any of the many examples of historical scientific breakthroughs that dictates that biological research has to start being acknowledged at its conclusion. The Bili Ape, a man sized non-human primate, required no such proof before its physical evidence was used to track it. The very fact that you expect this type of measure, is adhering to the idealism of "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary ideas", and is a very simple indication that the playing field isn't even. The "head start" I alluded to that pseudosceptics NEED. Extraordinary evidence is idealism and the current state of accumulative evidence is not being chased like up like some previously discovered primates. "It's not a matter of belief or faith in something here. It's a matter of scrutinising the evidence and finding it adequate & realising that others are unaware of a lot of this evidence, or of most of this evidence. Our problem is to attract scientific colleagues to scrutinise that evidence. It's not that scientists are out there looking for it and can't find it... Scientists are looking the other way. It's not the Sasquatch which has eluded the scientists but the scientists which have chosen to elude the Sasquatch. They don't want to hear about it."- John Bindernagle, PhD

"You would also have to demonstrate conclusively why it could NOT possibly be man-made?" ... Mr Curious, (here I go again), hoaxers would have to place hoaxed impressions in places where some people might not trek for many decades, hoping that someone some day would stumble across them out of miles and miles of wilderness. You also have the matter of freshly made tracks being found in these areas. Areas where the people finding them didn't even know they were going to be at that point in time. Furthermore, they would have to have guessed a shared morphology of Sasquatch foot, encompassing morphological consistency regarding bipedal evolution that only very few academics understand. This is your DEMONSTRABLE physical characteristics that is repeated across many different impressions. That SHOULD be enough to anyone who isn't abiding by the requirement of extraordinary evidence, or to anyone who isn't pushing the idea of some grand conspiracy where everyone who presents such ideas is dishonest. So whilst people do occasionally hoax tracks, this cannot be used as a means to throw out such valuable data purely due to the downsides of things like pop culture. Anything in the judiciary or scientific arenas can be hoaxed, and has been, yet it is not to their detriment. The very origin of the first commonly used name for this hominin, "Big Foot", was in direct reference to what was being documented even before these creature's sightings were being widely disclosed by witnesses. This essentially erodes any suggestion of major media influences on hoaxers, before any major powers of suggestion were giving these people such ideas.

"We have no biological proof of it's existence proof'."... Is special pleading in light of the evidence that exists. And it does Mr Curious, no matter how much you keep using rehashed mantras that never get around to actually addressing the points in favour of it standing up. . And to request peer review before one single mainstream study has been conducted is the cart before the horse. If you know anything about me, you will know that I've maintained all along that nothing will be scientifically proven without a body... But you'd have to be a total numpty to deny the existence of a creature that has the same comparative evidence as other primates have had at this stage of research. And this is where principles such as Occam's Razor can be applied. The reason the evidence is important, is because by this we can base a claim for further investigation, and when the pseudosceptic wants to poke fun at an enthusiast for believing, we can point to a level of evidence to be convinced by. You should try and think like a REAL sceptic and question your own angle for once.

And to Stuey (sigh). I notice that you've now resorted to pretending to be me now that you've realised that you're being ignored (#7:36). I don't know of anyone in the world who is so obsessed with someone, that they have to pretend to be them and have conversations with themselves. Reach out to someone bruv, you'd be surprised how many good souls are out there who would be willing to help.

IktomiSaturday, March 18, 2017 at 11:37:00 AM PDT"It's a matter of scrutinising the evidence and finding it adequate & realising that others are unaware of a lot of this evidence, or of most of this evidence."- John Bindernagle, PhD